PDA

View Full Version : [4e] "Utility Class"



Reinboom
2009-02-11, 09:22 PM
Shortly after 4e came out, one of my DMs decided to switch our 3.5e campaign over to it. In the midst of the conversion, it became very obvious that my preferred method of playing a class just was not available and my character already had to jump through homebrew loops in order to be decently anything like she was before. Especially given she was the product of heavy homebrew from 3.5 (custom class and modified race, 'Occult Hunter' Erinyes).

Well, after being infuriated by the 4e mechanics of what I want to accomplish for the final time, I brought up my issue with the system/powers options to my GM and tried to work out a solution.
My basic issue is that I do not want to attack and I especially do not want my effects hinging on the attack hitting or not. I prefer playing the reliable support and tactician's role.

The current idea of a solution works as follows:
Choose two classes. Choose at-wills and 3 class abilities from between these classes.
The 1st level encounter's power is chosen from between the two classes' 1st level encounter power.

Whenever you would gain a daily, instead, you gain a utility of 1 level higher from one of the classes.
Whenever you would gain an encounter beyond level 1, instead, you gain a utility of 1 level lower from one of the classes.

Once going this route, you can not opt to take the normal daily or encounter powers again. When switching powers, you switch as though it was the level you replaced for those powers available when you chose the power.

My character is a Paladin/Warlord "Utility Class" of such nature.
Is there any issues with this that should be taken note of?

Kaihaku
2009-02-11, 09:31 PM
One of my favorite characters was a dedicated healer who didn't carry a weapon, I thought about trying to convert him but have since given up. 4e just doesn't support that sort of role. I hope it works out for you. :smallfrown:

Starbuck_II
2009-02-11, 09:41 PM
One of my favorite characters was a dedicated healer who didn't carry a weapon, I thought about trying to convert him but have since given up. 4e just doesn't support that sort of role. I hope it works out for you. :smallfrown:

No, 4E does.
You just have to think within the box. Poeple always confuse what the box is. The box is the rules.

To use a power non-violently: you can always attack the ground.
Example: Cleric at wills
Priest's Shield has a secondary affect that doesn't care who you attack.
Neither does Sacred Flame.

Paladin:
Bolstering Strike is only at will here.

Warlord:
Wolf Pack tactics only at will here.

Alteran
2009-02-11, 09:46 PM
Attacking the ground with a power just to get the special effect is massively ineffective. Most of what you get from using an attack power is the damage (usually), so throwing that away means you are getting a lot less from your standard actions than you should be. Really, trying to use a combat class as a non-combat class by throwing away your combat abilities just means you'll be having very little impact.

A dedicated non-combat character needs a host of dedicated non-combat powers, because those are balanced without damage in mind.

NecroRebel
2009-02-11, 10:01 PM
My character is a Paladin/Warlord "Utility Class" of such nature.
Is there any issues with this that should be taken note of?

It sounds to me like you'll be badly underpowered after level 3 or so. Most utility powers are specifically designed to augment the user's attacks or are dailies, so the ones that are useful for a character of this nature would run dry very quickly in the course of actual battle.

May I ask how the Warlord class doesn't fit the role of a reliable support/tactician aside from not wanting to attack? The INT-based builds heavily favor movement and attack buffs, allowing allies to readily reposition themselves and gain advantages against foes, and all warlord builds have healing capabilities built-in. You can choose powers that are not reliant on hitting for their effects on most levels if you draw from Martial Power, so that might not be as problematic as you previously felt, either.



To be honest, I'm not sure what the purpose of your character would be in combat situations, even in 3.xe. Even Wizards and other classes that didn't technically "attack" would at least target enemies sometimes; those classes that didn't (like the Healer) are also considered stupidly weak.

Kaihaku
2009-02-11, 11:09 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure what the purpose of your character would be in combat situations, even in 3.xe. Even Wizards and other classes that didn't technically "attack" would at least target enemies sometimes; those classes that didn't (like the Healer) are also considered stupidly weak.

The concept of the Healer class was good but the implementation was faulty. There are few roles that I enjoyed more than the dedicated healer/buffer and my favorite character in that role was easily among the most useful in the group. I only targeted enemies a handful of times, often with tricks like Stabilize (SC) coupled Healing Kicker: Sancutary (HoB), but usually I was entertained enough with buffing people into the stratosphere and snatching people back from the brink of death (sometimes beyond via revivify). One of my favorites was tossing Monstrous Regeneration on someone going up against an enemy with Vorpal abilities who ended up getting beheaded, giving me opportunity to calmly hand the severed head back to his still living body. It's not played often but it certainly works in 3.5 and hitting the ground in 4e doesn't capture it's essence at all.

Reinboom
2009-02-11, 11:23 PM
-snip-

From what I notice, they tend to augment an attack rather than your attack.
Which is the whole point.
Wrath of Gods, One Heart, One Mind, Knight's Move... I enjoy these. I hate "3[W], cool effect, but if you miss... minor bleh". Since, well, I hate being unreliable (even if consistent).

The warlord doesn't fit the role because the warlord has to be on the front lines. Which I don't want. It's not just the support/tactician's role I'm looking for, it's the backlines party manipulator who doesn't need to show her face in order to be obviously effective.
I also must emphasize, one of the primary ideas of my character is "don't attack", and I can't drive this point more. I don't want to attack. Period.

In 3.5e, the idea worked significantly better, and such character concepts tended to work best as a spellcaster. Haste, Benign Transposition, innumerable defensive spells, Teleport, Fly...

NecroRebel
2009-02-11, 11:27 PM
OK, but the conventional wisdom (foolish as that often is) is that healing in battle is very much subpar in 3.x, while buffing to those extents is almost exclusively done before battle begins or in the first couple rounds. So... are you saying that you just sat back and watched your allies kill stuff in battle, or what? I'll be surprised if you say that you were really healing often, as in my (admittedly limited) experience that just tends to get the healer killed nor is it usually needed if you have layered hour/level buffs.



Addressing the OP a bit more, I took the liberty of looking over the Cleric powers and found that there is at least one Wis-based power of every level that does not technically require a hit for its primary effect. You'd be strictly less powerful than it you aimed to include enemies in your AoEs, but you could probably build a character who never made an attack roll under the given rules, particularly if you used some of the sustain-standard powers in lieu of at-wills after encounter powers ran dry.

Edit: You jumped in before I could again, but I guess this post still addressed your concerns maybe? I'm not exactly sure why you're adverse to attacking; you're playing a member of what is almost certainly a mercenary group, so it seems more than a little silly to be someone who's job description is "killing for profit" and then not killing. Still, I'll assume you have your reasons, so I'll just reiterate my prior statements: you'll run out of useful powers constantly if you use your utilities-only homebrew, and you'll be suboptimal if you play an attack-free Cleric. If you're fine with either of those, go for it is all I can say.

Reinboom
2009-02-11, 11:31 PM
OK, but the conventional wisdom (foolish as that often is) is that healing in battle is very much subpar in 3.x, while buffing to those extents is almost exclusively done before battle begins or in the first couple rounds. So... are you saying that you just sat back and watched your allies kill stuff in battle, or what? I'll be surprised if you say that you were really healing often, as in my (admittedly limited) experience that just tends to get the healer killed nor is it usually needed if you have layered hour/level buffs.

Per round buff, per round buff, minor trick or maneuver, maybe a single simple attack, minor trick or maneuver...

and the encounter was over. I might have to do emergency healing in 3.x, at most. Having encounters last longer than a couple rounds is subpar in 3.x, so, no time to just sit back and watch allies kill stuff. :smalltongue:


Addressing the OP a bit more, I took the liberty of looking over the Cleric powers and found that there is at least one Wis-based power of every level that does not technically require a hit for its primary effect. You'd be strictly less powerful than it you aimed to include enemies in your AoEs, but you could probably build a character who never made an attack roll under the given rules, particularly if you used some of the sustain-standard powers in lieu of at-wills after encounter powers ran dry.

Cleric powers don't do enough.
I never said I wanted to be a heal bot.
One of the larger points of this houseruling was to try to build such a character /as effective/ as everyone else.

I don't care what I can do within the limitations of the given options in the rules as is. I want to do what I envision of my character, and I don't want to be a gimp because of it.

NecroRebel
2009-02-11, 11:49 PM
Cleric powers don't do enough.
I never said I wanted to be a heal bot.
One of the larger points of this houseruling was to try to build such a character /as effective/ as everyone else.

I didn't say anything about being a healbot. You'd be more of a buffer/debuffer with some healing and control powers. For instance, at level 1 take Divine Glow as an encounter power, granting +2 to the attack rolls of everyone in the blast, and Guardian of Faith as a daily power, putting up an extra roadblock against enemy movement. At higher levels, you'd take things like Daunting Light (granting combat advantage to your party rogue whether you hit or miss), Spiritual Weapon to do much the same thing, and other powers who have an Effect line. Hell, be a Cleric with 8 Wisdom! You'll never actually be able to hit anything, so don't even bother rolling an attack!


I don't care what I can do within the limitations of the given options in the rules as is. I want to do what I envision of my character, and I don't want to be a gimp because of it.

I don't think you'll be able to without writing a completely new class. As is, it seems like you'll be gimping yourself whatever option you take :smallfrown:

KKL
2009-02-11, 11:54 PM
Judging by what you're saying, Sweet, you want the Bard.


you can always attack the ground.
No you can't.

Kaihaku
2009-02-12, 12:07 AM
OK, but the conventional wisdom (foolish as that often is) is that healing in battle is very much subpar in 3.x, while buffing to those extents is almost exclusively done before battle begins or in the first couple rounds. So... are you saying that you just sat back and watched your allies kill stuff in battle, or what? I'll be surprised if you say that you were really healing often, as in my (admittedly limited) experience that just tends to get the healer killed nor is it usually needed if you have layered hour/level buffs.

The cure and restoration chain of spells are definitely subpar but there are plenty of other interesting restorative spells out there. As for defense, I was playing a high-dex frontline character who, having no magical weapon, could afford the best defensive gear. Through Flexible Mind I got Tumble as a class skill and Combat Medic (ToB) added another nice defensive mobility boost. The class was Mystic (Dragonlance) so I had the spellslots to burn.

It was a campaign with a high mortality rate so you have a point there, in a normal campaign the build at low to mid levels wouldn't have been so useful. But with a Dungeon Master known to kill characters every other battle it was extremely useful to have one character focused in keeping everyone else buffed and alive. I played him from level 6 to 19 and like most full casters he only got better higher up when I took the Transformation domain and suddenly could adjust my allies race to the situations at hand.


The warlord doesn't fit the role because the warlord has to be on the front lines. Which I don't want. It's not just the support/tactician's role I'm looking for, it's the backlines party manipulator who doesn't need to show her face in order to be obviously effective.
I also must emphasize, one of the primary ideas of my character is "don't attack", and I can't drive this point more. I don't want to attack. Period.

I think you'll have to homebrew. The easiest option, as I see it, would be to take a Controller and write up your own abilities. Introduce longer ranged non-damage "control" spells along the lines of Reverse Gravity and 3.5 Illusion spells (4e Illusion spells are all damage from what I've seen). I'm not sure how you would balance it though since most of the cool abilities in 4e are secondary to an attack.


In 3.5e, the idea worked significantly better, and such character concepts tended to work best as a spellcaster. Haste, Benign Transposition, innumerable defensive spells, Teleport, Fly...

It did.

Aquillion
2009-02-12, 12:37 AM
To be honest, I'm not sure what the purpose of your character would be in combat situations, even in 3.xe. Even Wizards and other classes that didn't technically "attack" would at least target enemies sometimes; those classes that didn't (like the Healer) are also considered stupidly weak.You could make a perfectly good non-attacker in 3.xe. In general...

Battlefield-shaping spells are almost always effective and highly versatile. Buffs are extremely powerful both in and outside combat. Healing in combat is underpowered because the numbers are just so low compared to what you're getting -- a well-used buff or terrain-alteration will generally save you much more trouble than a similar-leveled healing spell could cure. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, buffs and terrain alteration can help you in situations where you just wouldn't be able to win at all otherwise -- if you're really getting your asses kicked, a well-placed buff or terrain alteration can turn things around, while an in-combat heal is usually just going to mean you'll get your asses kicked for a bit longer before you die. It's still useful if there's an unexpected emergency in a fight you otherwise have under control, of course, but it's not a good primary role.

Is completely neglecting offensive capabilities optimal? Generally, no, since optimally you use every ability at hand. But casters in 3.x were powerful enough, flexible enough, and broad-based enough to play fairly non-optimally and still be extremely effective, contributing a great deal to the team. In 4.0, there aren't any classes powerful enough to make that sacrifice, and few classes are written with enough buffs and/or terrain alteration to go it on their own.

Mando Knight
2009-02-12, 12:48 AM
It's not quite what you wanted in the OP... but here's how I think you could almost pull off a tactical leader/support character while relying on your own attack rolls as little as possible: (You'll still, however, be a primarily front-line/melee character...)

(This guide will list my suggestions for attack powers in the Heroic Tier. Don't have time to go through the Paragon and Epic tiers, nor through a detailed feat/magic item suggestion list. Unless otherwise marked, all powers are from the PHB)

First, be a Warlord, with either Tactical or Resourceful Presence. Multiclass into Wizard, and retrain the Multiclass feat when Arcane Power becomes available. All three power swap feats are recommended. Bard might be better for the base class, but I don't have DDI.

For one of your At-Wills, take Commander's Strike. Your standard action suddenly becomes your ally's attack action, and they get a boost to the damage. Wolf Pack Tactics will allow you to reposition an ally, so that's an option for a second At-Will.

For Encounter powers, there's not much you can do here.Lv. 1: Myrmidon Formation (Martial Power), the only Warlord level 1 encounter power with an effect line. 5 free Temporary Hit Points to everyone adjacent to you, regardless of whether or not you hit. However, you'll need a shield, so you can't use a polearm with this power. Switch this to Icy Terrain from the Wizard list ASAP if you want to use a polearm.
Lv. 3: Hold the Line or Shielding Retaliation (Martial Power). SR will let an adjacent ally (like, say, a Rogue or Ranger) shift an opportunity attack onto you, while Hold the Line improves ally defenses. Wizard encounters on this level are useless for the build.
Lv. 7: Only good one here is the Wizard's Winter's Wrath, which causes a blizzard to disrupt your foes... and Surround Foe, which lets an ally adjacent to the target slide into any other position adjacent to that target, allowing the Striker to set up flanking conditions.

Dailies are also tricky, but they tend to have decent Miss effects or are Reliable.Lv. 1: Pin the Foe: use a reach weapon, and the Defender and Striker can lock the target into place. Lead the Attack: Seriously gimped if you don't hit, but you still provide a benefit regardless. Calculated Assault (Martial Power): A limited version of Lead the Attack, Calculated Assault sacrifices the scope of the bonus for the Reliable keyword, which means you can never waste it with a miss. Concentrated Attack (Martial Power): Commander's Strike +: You attack once yourself for 2[W]+Strength, and then an ally within 10 makes any basic attack (ranged included) against the target, regardless of whether or not you hit. Lead By Example (Martial Power): If you miss, two of your allies can make attacks. If you hit, they all get CA against your target. Fearless Rescue (Martial Power): For you and your Nakama (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nakama). If you provoke opportunity attacks, your ally heals more... and the attack roll itself is more accurate than usual.
Flaming Sphere is also useful, as it provides auto-damage that you can roll around and sustain.

Lv. 5: Pike Hedge (Martial Power): Low damage, but it interrupts, and you can make opportunity actions to auto-damage enemies who step adjacent to you or your ally. A Rock and a Hard Place (Martial Power): Whenever an adjacent enemy attacks one of your allies and misses, you deal extra damage, no roll. It's also a stance, so it lasts quite a while. Scent of Victory (Martial Power): All of your allies within burst 5 can make a free melee basic attack against an adjacent bloodied enemy. Useful if you're back a ways, and you've got the TWF Ranger/Brutal Rogue and Strengthadin/Fighter flanking a bloodied Solo... Web and Stinking Cloud are good choices from the Wizard list.

Lv. 9: Blood Designation (Martial Power): Causes Ongoing Damage that grants CA. Useful. Warlord's Recovery (Martial Power): This takes the cake, IMO. Allows an ally within 5 to reuse one of his spent encounter powers, and recharges one of your own if you've used them all already. Stay On Target (Martial Power): Pull up! Too late! AAAAH! :smalltongue: ...anyway, this one lets you throw stuff, then have nearby allies throw more stuff. Good if you're into throwing things. Wizard powers: Icy Storm, or Wall of Fire.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 02:26 AM
Well, after being infuriated by the 4e mechanics of what I want to accomplish for the final time, I brought up my issue with the system/powers options to my GM and tried to work out a solution.
My basic issue is that I do not want to attack and I especially do not want my effects hinging on the attack hitting or not. I prefer playing the reliable support and tactician's role.

I really think a Lazor Cleric would do you well. Specifically, the Elven Bow Cleric, though a Wizard would work well too.
The Elven Bow Cleric is a relatively simple concept: an Elven Cleric who MC Rangers for access to the Ranger's long-range debuffing & controlling powers. With the automatic longbow proficiency, this makes for the perfect ranged cleric. Just raise WIS and DEX equally, and wear Hide Armor, and you are basically set.

Clerics in 4E are not healbots; they are the ranged Warlords that you were looking for. Between their summons (Spiritual Weapon, Guardians of Faith) and their area buffs (Mantle of Glory, for example) they do a very good job at keeping the party running at peak efficiency while closing up weak points. The nice thing with the Bow Ranger MC is that many of the Ranger abilities are interrupt powers which can protect your allies from attacks, or terrific debuffs that can shut down an enemy offensive.

And, at Paragon, look no further than Divine Oracle. Just look it over - it's perfect!

Now, if you're looking for a "never fail" character in 4E, they just don't exist. Everyone needs to roll to hit something, though many powers still operate without hitting. Any power which has an "Effect" line causes that effect to happen whether or not you hit with the power. The Elven Bow Cleric (gosh, he needs a catchier name) has loads of such options available.

I would heartily recommend trying to put together such a cleric instead of your homebrew. It basically sounds like Paragon Multiclassing at Heroic, which is just going to break the game unless everyone is doing it. Break it in the sense of horrifically disrupting the system, that is.

If you need help visualizing this character, please say so and I'd be happy to post up a general build to help you see what I'm talking about. I really do think it has everything you're looking for.

kieza
2009-02-12, 03:20 AM
How comfortable is your DM with homebrewing? Ask him if, instead of using an offshoot of existing classes, you could just work up a class as you go. (I offer to do this for my players in 4e if they can't make a concept with existing classes.) Just take a look at existing powers, remove the attack portions, perhaps buff up the effects to compensate for losing damage, and just work up a new power each time you hit a power-granting level. I recommend coming up with 2-4 "schticks" that your powers would revolve around before you get into the nuts and bolts, however.

If your DM isn't into homebrewing himself, but is willing to try homebrewed material, I (and I suspect many of the posters on these boards) would be glad to help working up these powers.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-02-12, 04:58 AM
I really think a Lazor Cleric would do you well.

I agree with Oracle on this one. Alternatively, next month will see the PHB 2 released, with the Bard class coming out. The Bard has healing, and though his powers are attacks, they don't really involve weapons. In addition, they are adept multiclassers, so picking up some Cleric or Paladin utilities is certainly an option.

Your solution, however, doesn't sound like too bad of a solution, given that it does pretty much exactly what you wanted it to do, so long as the DM retains veto power over your utility selection, in case you find some amazing combo. I think your build will be harder for the DM to account for depending on how many players you have. If you choose nothing but healing spells, then a group with few players will be near invincible until they are out of healing surges. If you choose nothing but full party buffs, then a party with 5-6 members might see a significant advantage, as they will routinely be buffed by one or two dailies each encounter (just from your character alone).

Either way, your group will also be dealing a fraction of the damage that is expected, so maybe your buffs will end up accounting for this missing damage, and it will all work out nicely.

Either way, you should try it out and tell the boards how it works!

Townopolis
2009-02-12, 05:47 AM
If your DM is up to it, you may want to look into just homebrewing new encounter and daily powers for an existing class. It would involve a fair amount of work, but I think the end result would be better.

But you'll have to consider, the fact that any given encounter power can be expended and do nothing is factored into their balance. Powers that automatically succeed are going to have to sacrifice a fair amount of their punch. However, there are some ways you can circumvent this.

First, powers that rely on the attack rolls of allies, such as Commander Strike, can be used. Granting free attacks to allies and then attaching riders to those attacks can be a great venue for powers. Another minor option is to provide saves. Some fights will have no saves, but others will have them all over the place. Some monsters have save ends effects on their at-wills, and when you get more than one in a fight, you can never have too many saves. They're also something you have to roll for, so granting a save doesn't guarantee the effect will end.

Still, you'll probably want to end up with a lot of powers that just work. They may be weaker, but at least you have the guarantee that they'll go off.

And you may end up just taking utilities and putting them in the slots of attack powers. However, I'd strongly recommend just doing it power-by-power with your DM, rather than trying to hash out some half-baked rule to follow. Quick and dirty rules only work when you're willing to break and mend them at any time, and for something this complicated, I'd think it'd be easier just to do it manually, rather than try to design some mechanic to automate it.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-12, 06:05 AM
warlord with a whip. it is a reach weapon handy with commanders strike and you can use a feat to make it so that hits do no damage and instead give that enemy -2 to hit.
so you're not actually whacking them with it but instead distracting them with it to protect your allies.

i made a tiefling warlord as an experiment with 18 int 18 cha and str 10. resourceful warlord he was an aging general who did not attack at all. he had commanders strike and opening shove(re fluffed to be a feint in combat but having the same effect-push foe and allow an adjacent ally to eith basic attack them or shift) obviously if the attack missed (his feint was unssuccesful) nothing happened but it was attacking reflex so..

encounter power myrmidon formation even on a miss gives 5 temp hps to all adjacent allies
daily lead by example. i actually prefer the miss effect on this power generally
level 2 adaptive strategem it rocks for resoure warlord
level 3 hold the line again provides benefit even on a miss.

TheOOB
2009-02-12, 06:17 AM
D&D is a tactical combat game, it's about a small group of adventurers defeating different types of enemies using group tactics. It always has been about fighting, and 4e is just distilling it a little, making the rules better at handling what D&D is supposed to be, and eliminating crappy rules for things outside of the scope of the game(eg there doesn't need to be a perform skill, if someone should be good at performing, there are good. You can call a charisma test or a diplomacy test if you must bring math and random chance into such an RP scenerio).

What I'm getting at is that if you don't want to fight(and part of fighting is disabling your opponents), then D&D is not the game for you. The fact is, most people who play D&D want to be able to deal decent damage and defeat their foes, even if they are supporting their party, and 4e is based around the belief. Unfortunately with only 8 classes, and limited powers and PPs, the classes are all going to share certain similarities as they flesh out the important role(looking at the PHB classes compared to the next classes being introduced shows that the PHB ones are a little more generic and tend to follow more predictable molds then say the barbarian or artifacer). The fact is, they want to get a good foundation down before they start making weird characters that only a small subset of the gaming population will want to play.

So in short, if your are playing D&D and looking for something other then tactical fantasy combat, you will be disappointed, and if you give 4e time, it will start to gain more weird unusual classes that fit the base sterotypes set by the fighter/paladin/ranger/rogue/wizard/cleric/warlord.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 07:09 AM
My basic issue is that I do not want to attack and I especially do not want my effects hinging on the attack hitting or not. I prefer playing the reliable support and tactician's role.
So your basic issue is that you want to play a character that is fundamentally incompatible with the design philosophy of the game you're playing.

Expect your character to be subpar at best, even with this mass of utility powers you're getting. Utilities are intended as side effects and don't even come close to what a well-placed daily does.

Asbestos
2009-02-12, 09:17 AM
warlord with a whip. it is a reach weapon handy with commanders strike and you can use a feat to make it so that hits do no damage and instead give that enemy -2 to hit.
so you're not actually whacking them with it but instead distracting them with it to protect your allies.

Whip Training does not work that way.
Whip Training [Multiclass]
Prerequisite: Dex 13, any martial class
Benefit: You gain proficiency with the whip. When you hit a target with your whip, that target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls against a target of your choice until the end of your next turn.

At the OP, I'm going to second (or is it third now?) being a bard, find some way to get a hold of the bard preview that was in dragon. You can also make up to a 3rd level bard using the character builder without a subscription (correct?) Anyway, more specifically, be a cunning bard, here's an example of their 'lead from behind' way of doing things...
VIRTUE OF CUNNING
Once per round, when an enemy attack misses an ally within a number of squares of you equal to 5 + your Intelligence modifier, you can slide that ally 1 square as a free action.

So, basically, 1/round you will be moving an ally within range since it isn't likely that your enemies will be hitting each of your allies every round. This sounds incredibly reliable to me.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-12, 09:23 AM
D&D is a tactical combat game, it's about a small group of adventurers defeating different types of enemies using group tactics.

Maybe you are right... but I feel bad when I heard things like this.

I will feel bad all the day.

Abbott
2009-02-12, 09:58 AM
I'm actually playing a 3,5 game where there's little combat. Of course, it's mostly diceless until we actually get to the combats, so I guess you have a point. Generally, I find that my friends put it very accurately when they said:

"Hey man, I like 4e. It's one of the best miniature games of the year. Heck, it even has some roleplaying elements."

Asbestos
2009-02-12, 10:27 AM
I'm actually playing a 3,5 game where there's little combat. Of course, it's mostly diceless until we actually get to the combats, so I guess you have a point. Generally, I find that my friends put it very accurately when they said:

"Hey man, I like 4e. It's one of the best miniature games of the year. Heck, it even has some roleplaying elements."



*head scratch*
It IS a roleplaying game! I play 4e, if I only wanted to play a D&D tactical combat game, I'd play DDM. 4e is a roleplaying game with tactical elements. D&D has always been such, just that 4e has very robust rules for combat and may seem, on the surface, to be purely combative. I assure you that this is not the case. D&D has never been 'combat light' despite what some would apparently like to believe. You can roleplay anything combat light, but to say 'oh, we do it this way, so clearly this is what its about' is just foolish. 3.x is full of combat related rules, just because certain groups ignore them does not mean that it is a combat light system.

The fact that you said that 'its mostly diceless until we get to combat' is telling since there's NO reason, other than straight up edition bias, that 4e couldn't fit the same play style.

I was hoping, that what... 6 months after the system was released, that we wouldn't be seeing such edition flaming on the first page of these threads anymore.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-12, 10:54 AM
Judging by what you're saying, Sweet, you want the Bard.


No you can't.

Yes, reread the Errata. Any power can target the ground (which is an object). The only exception is where the DM rules different (which is the DM being mean not the rules fault).

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-12, 11:44 AM
I don't like 4e rituals, since I'm now convinced they don't do enough to capture the feel and use of magic from previous editions.

That said, I do like the skill system. Sure, there isn't the same degree of granularity in how you can spread around your bonuses, but in the end, skill points are just the illusion of freedom. The strength of skills can vary quite widely due to attributes/feats/training.

4e's skills actually seem to be far more rules-light than 3.5, in that there is some room for open interpretation and roleplay. This is a good thing, and it is possible to optimize a skill simply by stat and feat selection.

I'll also note that Dopplegangers in the Monster Manual get a bonus to both bluffing and also get the ability to shapeshift. (Apparently you really like Erinyes).

What this means is that Dopplegangers can replicate a unique individual with what amounts to a +22 bonus to bluffs. Stack training and skill focus and you can easily bump this up to +30 with charisma bonuses. Merely "changing your face" doesn't seem to require any sort of check.

It occurred to me that this might be overpowered, but the realization set in that mediating a power like this actually requires quite a lot of houseruling on the GM's part. That is, you don't automatically set off the "freebie" detectors, but people can still pick up motives and incongruities in behavior/clothing/knowledge/etc. and this actually requires decision-making on your part.

This is where player skill comes in. I've run across "old school" opinions that this is exactly why previous editions were "rules light" because that encouraged more freeform play and problem-solving. 4e skills seems something of a minor concession in that direction. And another thing of note is that characters are easy to make and don't need to be optimized for hours-on-end. D&D is combat-centric, just get over your indignation at having to smack things every-now-and-then and you'll be fine.

DiscipleofBob
2009-02-12, 11:56 AM
Out of curiosity, why is it you want to have a character that never makes an attack roll ever? Is it because you just enjoy the 3.5 mechanic of "No, YOU roll to see if I miss"? Or is it because your character is a nonviolent pacifist? Or is it something else?

If it's the former, I got nothing. Take a look at the other posters' suggestions as to how to maybe go about your build, but sorry to say that 4th edition really doesn't have anything to support this playstyle.

If it's the latter, however, I'd like to point out that in 4e, any damage can be completely nonlethal with NO penalties, and you choose whether or not to kill an enemy or knock them out at 0 HP. You can also refluff ANY power in a separate way so that it more fits your character, say, making it completely nonlethal and nonthreatening in nature. Hit points are a measure of stamina, so you can just say you aren't hitting your target, you're wearing them down. It's perfectly viable to attack and deal just as much damage as your allies in a completely nonviolent way.

Saph
2009-02-12, 01:51 PM
If it's the latter, however, I'd like to point out that in 4e, any damage can be completely nonlethal with NO penalties, and you choose whether or not to kill an enemy or knock them out at 0 HP. You can also refluff ANY power in a separate way so that it more fits your character, say, making it completely nonlethal and nonthreatening in nature. Hit points are a measure of stamina, so you can just say you aren't hitting your target, you're wearing them down. It's perfectly viable to attack and deal just as much damage as your allies in a completely nonviolent way.

I doubt this is what she's looking for. The reason I say this is because like SweetRein, I like playing buffer/support characters that don't make attacks, and I was disappointed too to find that 4e didn't support it. The 'refluff' approach is also a poor one for most players, as it doesn't do anything to make the character play differently.

I've played a Laser Cleric, too, and I can say from experience that it doesn't match the 'buffer' playstyle at all. You spend most combats standing within 5 squares of enemies zapping them repeatedly and occasionally throwing out a Healing Word. You're more short-range artillery than a buffer.

Haven't tried a bard, so not sure whether they would work any better.

- Saph

Townopolis
2009-02-12, 02:23 PM
From my experience as a bard, well. All your attack powers are still attack powers. You just have a lot of stuff that ****s with your enemies.

At level 6, I most enjoy:


Making an enemy attack another enemy twice (requires an attack roll, but the power itself doesn't do any damage, just Hit: the target is dominated 1 round)
Sliding an enemy around and granting free attacks
inspiring my allies so that they heal every time they hit a specific enemy.


All of these are from attack powers. 2 of those powers deal damage on a hit, 1 does not. I find that I don't really care that much about my damage--and it is pretty low--but really use powers based on powerful bonus effects.

Still, if your dead set on not attacking, I still advice working it over manually with your DM.

Yakk
2009-02-12, 02:32 PM
Can we do this in a way that is philosophically lined up with 4e?

I mean, it is relatively easy to just make up a class and hope it works out.

The philosophy of 4e includes:
1> Automatic effects are weak. Chance is involved (in any power of sufficient strength)
2> You are encouraged to get in close to your opponents, and mix it up.
3> The entire group contributes to lowering the bad guys HP, which is how you defeat them.
4> Status effects are short term and non-decisive.

How few of these can we break? Well, we could aim ourselves at #3. Create a class that does do attacks, but very rarely reduces the bad guys HP.

Ie:
Curse Level 1 At-Will Attack
Implement
Range: 10 squares
Attack: Wis vs Will
Hit: The next attack that hits the target, before the start of your next turn, deals an extra 1d8+Wis damage. This increases to 2d8+Wis at level 21. The target also has to make an immediate save, or be dazed for one turn.

This is a power that deals no damage directly. It instead curses someone, then boosts the damage of the next attack on the target.

You could imagine other attacks that do other tricks sort of like this.

Attacking an enemy is important -- as otherwise, the defences of your enemies do not matter to how useful your character is. A character 10 levels under an encounter is supposed to be very useless in that encounter.

Similarly, being 'close' to the fight is encouraged. You should be less effective if you aren't close. This means that your character's defences do matter somewhat, and the offensive power of opponents matters.

The importance of direct HP damage can be reduced. But at the same time, your ability to apply status effects cannot be anywhere close to "I win". Similarly, your abilities shouldn't require your allies recalculate anything on their character sheets.

True Aim At-Will Attack 1
Standard Action, Implement
Ranged 5
Target: One ally
Effect: The next time your target makes an attack before the beginning of your next turn, make a Secondary attack against the same target before the attack using your allies line of effect.
Secondary Attack: Wis vs Reflex
Secondary Hit: Your ally gets roll twice to hit, each with a bonus to hit equal to your Wisdom bonus+2. The ally can pick either attack roll. In addition, the ally deals an extra Charisma bonus damage if they hit.

That is a more "pure" boost ability. You pick an ally. If the ally makes an attack, you get a Wis vs Reflex attack to see if you can guide their aim. If so... the ally gets a large boost to their chance to hit.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 03:40 PM
I've played a Laser Cleric, too, and I can say from experience that it doesn't match the 'buffer' playstyle at all. You spend most combats standing within 5 squares of enemies zapping them repeatedly and occasionally throwing out a Healing Word. You're more short-range artillery than a buffer.

OK, I'll throw up the build I was using, and explain:
LV 1 - Lance of Faith, Sacred Flame, Divine Glow, Guardian of Faith + MC Ranger
Yes, most of his powers are 25' ranged powers, but we are talking about first level. Most usefully, he has Trained Perception (for a Passive Perception of 21) which is great for keeping the party out of ambushes and traps. With low-light vision, you are everyone's friend, and don't generally have to roll to thwart ambushes (though you should for traps).

For you, the Guardian of Faith should be the high point. A mobile Area Attacker which you can sit back and move about to provide support without risk. Note the Errata which means it only strikes enemies now.

LV 2 - Sanctuary + Skill Focus (Perception)
Sanctuary provides a +5 to all defenses until attack or the end of your next turn. An excellent thing to drop on your Striker before he weaves through a bunch of OAs, or to put on yourself for a round of healing and buffing. 50' range.

Focus Perception means that, without rolling, you can now detect pretty much every trap within line of sight. Nice.

LV 3 - Command
No damage, but you drop a huge debuff and can knock someone over or slide them a good distance. 50' range.

LV 4 - + MC Encounter
Swap out Command for Disruptive Strike. Now you can interrupt an attacking enemy with your longbow, imposing a -7 on his attack roll versus an ally. Your range is 100' without penalty, and 200' at -2. How's that for battlefield control?

LV 5 - Spiritual Weapon
Summon a weapon that, merely by being in the same square as an enemy, grants Combat Advantage to all allies who attack it. It'll be there for the entire encounter and you can move it from enemy to enemy. Oh, and you can roll to smack things with it if you like.

LV 6 - Holy Lantern + Skill Training
+2 to Perception and Insight, and it provides light? Perfect!

Pick up skill training in some knowledge skill. Now you can figure out the strengths and weaknesses of more monsters. Very helpful!

LV 7 - Searing Light
Blind an enemy once an encounter. Also, do some damage. Range 50'

LV 8 - MC Utility
Also, swap out Sanctuary (if you'd like) for Crucial Advice. Grant +4 and a reroll to someone's failed skill check, once per encounter.

LV 9 - Astral Defenders or Blade Barrier
Either create a wall of doom, or some mobile defenders who can act as stand-in Defenders by providing extra OAs.

LV 10 - Shielding Word + Skill Training
Give +4 AC to someone after they've been hit - hopefully causing the attack to miss. 25' range.

If you don't like fighting, become a skill monkey! With Crucial Advice, you are doubly useful.

LV 11 - Become a Divine Oracle
nuff said.

This build is not short-ranged artillery; by LV 3 you start having the 50' range powers, which is the second-longest range available in 4E. Then, once you can start moving powers through your bow, you have essentially unlimited range. Your powers provide mighty buffs or debuffs, and your summons can provide a helpful surrogate to your frail body which can do tremendous things. Spiritual Weapon, in particular, is just incredible.

Saph, I presume you didn't use this build; does it look more attractive than the one you did use?

Saph
2009-02-12, 04:59 PM
Saph, I presume you didn't use this build; does it look more attractive than the one you did use?

I can see a few logistical issues:

1) A bow requires two hands; a holy symbol requires one. That's three hands worth of items to keep juggling (and I don't see Quick Draw in there).

2) You're going to need to keep pumping Dex to keep your Ranger attacks relevant. This means you can't boost Charisma for your Cleric secondary powers.

Can't be sure if the tradeoffs are worth it - I'll give it a go next time (it's identical to my old Cleric except that it has a higher Dex and presumably lower Cha/Str, and slightly different encounter powers).

That said, though, from a glance it doesn't look as if it would play significantly differently. You still have to stay fairly close to keep your Healing Word and At-Wills in range, so most of the time it's still going to come down to zapping enemies from 5 squares away.

- Saph

Arbitrarity
2009-02-12, 05:21 PM
Not true, Saph. Holy symbols in 4e can just be worn, don't need to be wielded. Check the PHB items section.

horseboy
2009-02-12, 05:25 PM
Well, since we're spit balling ideas here, how about instead of attacking the monsters you "attack" the party. Home brew some abilities that attack party member's Will and Fort #'s with your d20+cha. Since they're voluntary targets you get like a +5 or +10 (probably depending on if you're in combat or not) bonus to your attacks. Then make the abilities something like "target gets a free swing" or "all targets receive +1d damage to their next attack". You can make your implement pom-poms or a megaphone or whatever. And for that one party member you can never seem to hit the # for, you start shouting: "I will motivate you _________, even if I have to short **** every cannibal in the Congo!"

Saph
2009-02-12, 05:48 PM
Not true, Saph. Holy symbols in 4e can just be worn, don't need to be wielded. Check the PHB items section.

Huh, didn't see that rule before. Well, that helps a bit.

On the other hand, you'd still have to enchant two separate weapons to play a bow/symbol user, so I'm still not sure it's worth it.

- Saph

KKL
2009-02-12, 06:49 PM
Huh, didn't see that rule before. Well, that helps a bit.

On the other hand, you'd still have to enchant two separate weapons to play a bow/symbol user, so I'm still not sure it's worth it.

- Saph

Keep either one behind a single point, which won't cripple the attack at all. I'd suggest keeping the Longbow behind. Also, Charisma isn't exactly a much needed stat. 12/14 is perfectly fine.


Curse Lex Aeterna Level 1 At-Will Attack
Fixed.

Saph
2009-02-12, 07:01 PM
Keep either one behind a single point, which won't cripple the attack at all. I'd suggest keeping the Longbow behind. Also, Charisma isn't exactly a much needed stat. 12/14 is perfectly fine.

I dunno. A low-stat low-weapon basic attack isn't exactly going to scare the monsters much.

Anyway, while this is an interesting sideline, it's not really any help for the OP, who was looking for a class that doesn't make attacks.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 07:10 PM
That said, though, from a glance it doesn't look as if it would play significantly differently. You still have to stay fairly close to keep your Healing Word and At-Wills in range, so most of the time it's still going to come down to zapping enemies from 5 squares away.

Well, if you are tied to 3 powers having Range 5 rather than the 4+ powers that are 10 or longer, I don't know what to say. Heck, having a single Summon on the board gives you an enormous range of action; Elves have Move 7 after all, so you can run around a lot if you need to. And you can just attack with your Bow if you want to be further away - 1d10+DEX is decent damage, no matter how you slice it.

How far back do you want to stand and be effective? If this is still too close, you can roll up a Wizard with nothing but zones and ranged bursts where your closest attack is 50'.

I haven't found pumping CHA to be particularly helpful. I have a +2 CHA which is sufficient for the few powers that use CHA; better to pump DEX to improve your AC, Initiative, and to-hit with your bow. Nor have magical item issues come up; it's certainly no worse than a TWF Ranger, and actually a bit better (you'll use your Symbol far more often than your bow, as opposed to TWF Rangers who use both equally).

For extreme synergy, take a Symbol of Victory; you a practically guaranteed one crit per encounter (Prophecy of Doom), so you can always give an AP to your high-damage party member. I use it on our party 2H Fighter who regularly does 40-60 damage on a crit at level 11. Oh does it ever annoy our DM :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:

Anyway, while this is an interesting sideline, it's not really any help for the OP, who was looking for a class that doesn't make attacks.

Well... a completely pacifist class (one who never makes a to-hit roll) is impossible in 4E. You could do it in 3E, but only because most spells didn't require attack rolls. Now, the above build is not a damage-dealing class, nor do all (possibly most) of its abilities require you to hit to work. This seems like a "next best" solution that, I think, may be far easier on both the DM and the player than homebrewing something that violates several design philosophies (as Yakk pointed out).

I would like to hear more about what exactly the OP dislikes about making attack rolls. As I said above, this build minimizes randomness (also: Elven Accuracy) while retaining decent buffing/de-buffing abilities; hopefully that is what bothered the OP.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 07:35 PM
If it really is attack rolls that are the problem, you could change who rolls the dice. "+7 vs Will" becomes "Will Save, DC 29". Just add 22 to the number.

Reinboom
2009-02-12, 11:24 PM
How comfortable is your DM with homebrewing? Ask him if, instead of using an offshoot of existing classes, you could just work up a class as you go. (I offer to do this for my players in 4e if they can't make a concept with existing classes.) Just take a look at existing powers, remove the attack portions, perhaps buff up the effects to compensate for losing damage, and just work up a new power each time you hit a power-granting level. I recommend coming up with 2-4 "schticks" that your powers would revolve around before you get into the nuts and bolts, however.

If your DM isn't into homebrewing himself, but is willing to try homebrewed material, I (and I suspect many of the posters on these boards) would be glad to help working up these powers.

My DM is quite comfortable with houseruling. All races had to be modified in order to support the conversion. (I'm still an Erinyes, for example, but very simple)
I have been considering just doing this.


D&D is a tactical combat game, it's about a small group of adventurers defeating different types of enemies using group tactics. It always has been about fighting, and 4e is just distilling it a little, making the rules better at handling what D&D is supposed to be, and eliminating crappy rules for things outside of the scope of the game(eg there doesn't need to be a perform skill, if someone should be good at performing, there are good. You can call a charisma test or a diplomacy test if you must bring math and random chance into such an RP scenerio).

What I'm getting at is that if you don't want to fight(and part of fighting is disabling your opponents), then D&D is not the game for you. The fact is, most people who play D&D want to be able to deal decent damage and defeat their foes, even if they are supporting their party, and 4e is based around the belief. Unfortunately with only 8 classes, and limited powers and PPs, the classes are all going to share certain similarities as they flesh out the important role(looking at the PHB classes compared to the next classes being introduced shows that the PHB ones are a little more generic and tend to follow more predictable molds then say the barbarian or artifacer). The fact is, they want to get a good foundation down before they start making weird characters that only a small subset of the gaming population will want to play.

So in short, if your are playing D&D and looking for something other then tactical fantasy combat, you will be disappointed, and if you give 4e time, it will start to gain more weird unusual classes that fit the base sterotypes set by the fighter/paladin/ranger/rogue/wizard/cleric/warlord.

1. I like leveling mechanics. I enjoy the constructive yet limiting "LEGO blocks" style game systems, as, a significant portion of where I have fun is in character creation and leveling. Though, 3.5 does do this better for me.
2. I enjoy high D&D fantasy.
3. I enjoy tactical combats.
4. I enjoy my DM's campaign.
5. Rarely, and very specifically, do I hear people who play D&D say 'they want to deal decent damage'.
6. From 2e, through 3.5, I've never had an issue with filling this character role (after level 2, at least, for 2e), as there was always at least one class that I could fill the role with. I've almost always been a utility 'Wizard' of some sort (in 3.5, I was more fond of sorcerers, but point stands).

I have never said I wanted to be useless in combat. I just don't like doing anything to the enemy directly. And 4e clearly has these sort of things in it. Commander's Strike, for example, is a great fit.


Out of curiosity, why is it you want to have a character that never makes an attack roll ever? Is it because you just enjoy the 3.5 mechanic of "No, YOU roll to see if I miss"? Or is it because your character is a nonviolent pacifist? Or is it something else?

If it's the former, I got nothing. Take a look at the other posters' suggestions as to how to maybe go about your build, but sorry to say that 4th edition really doesn't have anything to support this playstyle.

If it's the latter, however, I'd like to point out that in 4e, any damage can be completely nonlethal with NO penalties, and you choose whether or not to kill an enemy or knock them out at 0 HP. You can also refluff ANY power in a separate way so that it more fits your character, say, making it completely nonlethal and nonthreatening in nature. Hit points are a measure of stamina, so you can just say you aren't hitting your target, you're wearing them down. It's perfectly viable to attack and deal just as much damage as your allies in a completely nonviolent way.

Because I dislike constant chance that hangs on me. Because I like the reward of having my teammates say "thanks!" and letting them feel good for hitting something hard. Because I like control.

My character doesn't really care if something dies. Only in specific circumstances will she go out of her way to kill it herself, though.

To Yakk and the running responses to his post:
I don't see why breaking design philosophies is an issue, unless for specific power reasons. Experimenting with the rules allows more insight in to the system, and more importantly, for more players to find their preferred niche.
Of course, save or lose/dies are right out, as, their effects on the games became more obvious with 3.5.


If it really is attack rolls that are the problem, you could change who rolls the dice. "+7 vs Will" becomes "Will Save, DC 29". Just add 22 to the number.

It is not just attack rolls.


Random other replies:
Staying within 5 squares for effect is fine. I enjoy being 'ranged' just to make myself a nonobvious target (which, is another reason why I play these types of characters), and not to outright avoid everything. I just don't want to be required to be standing absolutely next to my opponents or my team mates.

It will take me a little while to study the lazer cleric, I haven't read the build yet, sorry.

My character is not an absolute pacifist, she's a nonaggressive tactician and manipulator.

My character /is/ an Erinyes still. Not evil (insert backstory here), but not definitely not paladin good or moral.

Nightson
2009-02-12, 11:55 PM
Figure out the average damage the power would do, adjust everything to make up for no miss chance.

Lance of faith:
Give one ally a +1 power bonus to attack and a +5 power bonus to damage.

Draz74
2009-02-12, 11:56 PM
but not definitely not paladin good or moral.

Paladin alignment restrictions are gone in 4e.

Kaihaku
2009-02-13, 12:22 AM
Paladin alignment restrictions are gone in 4e.

Nitpicking is still around though.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 12:23 AM
Paladin alignment restrictions are gone in 4e.

Not quite.

Paladins must be the exact Alignment of their Deity. Clerics can be one step removed, as usual (IIRC; I think "good" Deities require at least "Good" Clerics, but I'm not sure).

In any case, Paladins no longer have a rules-created Code of Conduct from which you can Fall. In fact, neither Clerics nor Paladins can lose their powers; the mortal churches have to "look after their own" and not rely on the divine panopticon to do it for them.

EDIT:

Nitpicking is still around though.

I'm pretty sure he meant to be informative, rather than "nit-picky," in case the OP was confused about that particular matter.

Aquillion
2009-02-13, 12:28 AM
Not quite.

Paladins must be the exact Alignment of their Deity. Clerics can be one step removed, as usual (IIRC; I think "good" Deities require at least "Good" Clerics, but I'm not sure).But you can choose an unaligned or evil evil deity (although, this being 4e, "paladins of evil deities are almost never player characters.")

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 12:32 AM
But you can choose an unaligned or evil evil deity (although, this being 4e, "paladins of evil deities are almost never player characters.")

Right, and then you have to be Evil or Unaligned. I guess I wasn't very clear.

To be clear: Paladins can worship any deity, but they must be the exact alignment of that deity. So if you worship an unaligned god, you must be an unaligned paladin.

Reinboom
2009-02-13, 12:47 AM
I was very informed of that.
Perhaps I should link the trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid?from=Main.StupidGood) I was making a poke at?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 12:53 AM
Perhaps I should link the trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid?from=Main.StupidGood) I was making a poke at?

Excellent :xykon:

TheOOB
2009-02-13, 03:11 AM
I feel it should be noted that you only have to be your deities alignment to become a paladin, which presumably requires an NPC ritual of some kind that only works on the faithful. Once you are a paladin the powers are yours, for good or for ill. If you later fall you can still channel the divine power of your god to smite your enemies, who may very well be your previous allies.

Also it should be noted that due to the nature of the class, most paladins(and to a lesser extent clerics) are good or unaligned. The divine classes in the PHB are distinctly good themed, and while the evil god most likely have a few people who can make paladins and clerics(which where in the beginning most likely fallen clerics/paladins) most of their divine follows would have much darker powers.

As for the complaints about D&D, it's really simple. D&D does one thing, and it does it very well. It's getting better and more diverse, but if you don't like the core ideas behind 4e, there is little for you to do.

Luckily there are hundreds of PnP RPGS out there, many of which can be acquired for very cheep online because of their age.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-13, 03:27 AM
I never liked the diversification of paladins. Paladins are supposed to be lawful good holy knights. Everybody knows that.

If you move off-flavor then you pretty much lose the cultural applicability of Paladins.

Say, didn't they used to have an assassin base class back in 1st?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 03:35 AM
Say, didn't they used to have an assassin base class back in 1st?

Oh my, yes. They also had monks and druids who couldn't advance past a certain level unless they beat one of the N strongest members of their class.

Never has a Master of Flowers been so feared and respected :smallamused:

In other news: I'd be careful throwing around "everyone knows" unless you have back up. While in this case, it is clear that the original D&D Paladin was designed to be a LG "knight" with a code of conduct and so forth, WotC has just followed the path they set up in 3E with their Chaos Paladins and such.

IMHO, making a Paladin a "sacred warrior" and an exemplar of their deity's ideals is an acceptable alteration. It makes Paladins a more widely-used class, and allows a bit more breadth in character design. I mean, it worked for Rangers pretty well.

In case you didn't know, in 2E Rangers had to be a Good alignment - for some reason :smalltongue:

Reinboom
2009-02-13, 03:36 AM
I feel it should be noted that you only have to be your deities alignment to become a paladin, which presumably requires an NPC ritual of some kind that only works on the faithful. Once you are a paladin the powers are yours, for good or for ill. If you later fall you can still channel the divine power of your god to smite your enemies, who may very well be your previous allies.

Also it should be noted that due to the nature of the class, most paladins(and to a lesser extent clerics) are good or unaligned. The divine classes in the PHB are distinctly good themed, and while the evil god most likely have a few people who can make paladins and clerics(which where in the beginning most likely fallen clerics/paladins) most of their divine follows would have much darker powers.

As for the complaints about D&D, it's really simple. D&D does one thing, and it does it very well. It's getting better and more diverse, but if you don't like the core ideas behind 4e, there is little for you to do.

Luckily there are hundreds of PnP RPGS out there, many of which can be acquired for very cheep online because of their age.

I don't understand why that should be noted. It was never debated, disagreed, or ignored. My statement referred only to the common trope of "stick in the mud" paladins who "do no wrong". A trope. Not a class. Not a rule. :smallsigh:

D&D does multiple things. D&D is a series of sets of rules, with many editions, that many folks use for different ends. It may have been intended for dungeon crawl tactical games, but that is definitely not all it's used for. "D&D does one thing" is thus a false statement.
I can hit a random passerby over the head with a D&D book and get charged with battery; thus, I would be using the thick pages of rules and covering for more than a tactical dungeon crawl game.

There is things for me to do. Houseruling. The point of this thread was to try to find something suitable for me within these rules, or for others with this same problem if they so choose. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to accept.

And unfortunately, most of those RPGs are one of, or a combination of, the following: badly aged, badly written, unsupported, mathematically unsound mechanically, would be refused to be played by with my peers, or are not part of the 4e campaign that I'm playing in and trying to adjust for and would rather not leave.


Say, didn't they used to have an assassin base class back in 1st?

Yes.


Edit:
I don't care for the design philosophy.
I care for the system.
I don't want to attack.
I don't want to attack.
I want to be viable.
I don't want alternatives.

I don't want questions "why?", unless under true curiosity and constructive, and then please don't ask why I don't want to attack without reading my earlier posts.

Aquillion
2009-02-13, 04:42 AM
Oh my, yes. They also had monks and druids who couldn't advance past a certain level unless they beat one of the N strongest members of their class.My recollection is that, at least in 2e, there could only be one 14th-level druid in the entire world. (Maybe it was a different level, but there was one chokepoint like that.) And IIRC you weren't supposed to challenge him to a duel or kill him, although the rules didn't specifically ban it and it was the obvious conclusion...

Also IIRC Paladins had to be human, because racism. Or something.


In case you didn't know, in 2E Rangers had to be a Good alignment - for some reason :smalltongue:Because in 2e rangers were required to actually be Aragorn instead of merely emulating him.

Reinboom
2009-02-13, 04:56 AM
IIRC it was around 15 that druids had to decide to ascend to archdruids and allow another high druid take over their spot and level.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 05:37 AM
I don't want to attack.

What exactly do you mean by this?

From what I've read it seems like your main concern is your chance of missing; that is, the chance of trying, but doing nothing. If this is true, then you will like the power selection in the Warlord and Cleric classes; many Leader powers create an effect even if they miss. Paladins only do this rarely - usually in their Utilities and the occasional Daily. A step removed would be powers that you can sustain - so even if you miss once, you can try again next turn. There are many more of these powers - as I've mentioned before, mainly in Cleric summons - though any Reliable power would provide the same benefit.

But, I also get a sense that you don't want to actually target enemies at all. If this is also true, then you'll be wanting strictly buffing powers. There are not many of these, though you may like Commander's Strike & Wolf Pack Tactics from Warlord as At-Wills, and stick mainly in the Cleric set for Dailies. Pretty much all Encounter Attacks target an enemy, so there's nothing we can do there.

I, for one, would appreciate perhaps a paragraph to elaborate on this theme. Or perhaps it would be easier for you to post your 3E homebrew class, so we can more clearly see what you want. I'm afraid that I, at least, don't really have a firm idea as to what features you're really looking for - a pacifist, a reliable partner, a living totem pole?

Of course, if you'd just prefer someone to vet your 4E homebrew, I'd go with Yakk's analysis. He's a sharp guy, number-wise, and he'll probably be able to power-balance you well.

EDIT:
A side note on the importance of design philosophy
The reason Yakk & others have been mentioning the 4E design philosophy so much is that it is the underlying set of axioms that form the foundation for 4E. Any time you violate an axiom, you basically free yourself from a rule that constrains every other entity in the game; this is often the first step towards breaking a system.

For example, in 3E it was true that HP are relevant to your character's survival; someone with 0 HP was in a bad way. The Tarrasque was designed as a game-breaker in that merely running out of HP wasn't going to inconvenience it terribly. Imagine a character for whom HP were irrelevant - he could only be harmed by stat drain or save or die spells. You can see how powerful this can become.

Yakk's set of 4E axioms are similar rules; specifically ones that your character concept may run up against:
1> Automatic effects are weak. Chance is involved (in any power of sufficient strength)
2> You are encouraged to get in close to your opponents, and mix it up.
3> The entire group contributes to lowering the bad guys HP, which is how you defeat them.
4> Status effects are short term and non-decisive.

If you alone were able to create automatic effects that provided a significant advantage (say, an at-will that granted someone +2 on their next attack) you would likely find yourself being far more effective than anything else at your level. Likewise, if you could provides such buffs and debuffs from 100' away, then few other enemies could conflict with you.

Now, if we are very careful, we can probably balance effects that break these design axioms, but it will be very complicated, and require a lot of testing. Homebrewing is much easier to do within the bounds of axioms - you can usually just eyeball a rule and be right about it. The axioms are not brought up out of a slavish desire to remain "true to the system" or somesuch; they are as much a part of the game as HP and attack rolls.

That said, if there is some part of the design philosophy that you absolutely object to, it would be best to have it stated plainly, so that everyone knows what they have to work around.

Reinboom
2009-02-13, 06:31 AM
I really don't want to target my enemies at all.
I don't mind being up close (just not absolute melee). I don't want to target my opponents.
Further, I enjoy doing movement effects more than anything. Examples of powers that I have enjoyed while playing my character as is described in my first post so far:
Knight's Move, Wrath of Gods, One Heart, One Mind

The original class was a strange mix of dragon shaman esque healing and auras, a very small bit of incarnum, and a bit of archery advancement feats designated by the GM.

A living totem pole/reliable partner is perhaps the goal?


For the design philosophy:
I don't see it much an issue. There are already utility powers that break a lot of these terms. Inspired Belligerence, from Martial Powers. A level 2 encounter that lets you give all your allies combat advantage over a single target. You don't need to hit this target or anything to do so, and can be up to 5 squares away.
Wrath of Gods gives a decent damage bonus that lasts the entire encounter.

Both of these appeal to me.

Effects that focus on mass improving, or shifting around, the party I can not understand as being terribly unbalancing, at least in the sense of balance among the party. They are the ones being improved, after all.

And yes, there is a major part of the design philosophy I do object to:
if(hit('Stat vs Defense')){
x[W]+stat_damage + effect;
}
else return 0;

Rather, I would wish to see more of:
if(!restriction()){
effect;
}

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 06:34 AM
Base Chassis: Cleric. Some powers taken from Warlord, with range increased to 5 from melee, and keywords changed to Divine/Implement.
Concept: change every power to be like Commander's Strike. Slightly increased range justified by the reduction in flexibility. Granted basic attacks are a mix of melee and ranged.

At-wills:
1. Modified Lance of Faith. An ally of your choice makes a basic melee attack against the target. If they hit, they gain a +2 power bonus to their next attack roll against the target.
2. Modified Commander's Strike. An ally of your choice makes a basic ranged attack against the target. If they hit they get bonus damage equal to your charisma modifier.

Encounter:
Modified Hammer and Anvil. Two allies within five squares of the target make a basic attack against it. If both hit, add your charisma modifier to their total damage.

Daily:
Guardian of Faith (as is).

----

Would that work?

Edit: Since you like movement effects, you could consider modified Wolf Pack Tactics rather than one of the two at-wills given. I'd suggest making one at-will provide ranged basics, and one provide melee basics.

horseboy
2009-02-13, 07:31 AM
I have been up way too long. Also, I don't remember what level your character is, this isn't intended for low level, but more intermediate. Found my book, looked it over, realized that you didn't have to hit for stuff like Lay on Hands, so went with that concept.

Okay, going to write these martial, because it's funnier that way, resource to whatever you decide on:

Word of Warning
"You realize the danger before your friend"
At-Will*Martial, The ability to be heard
Standard Action LoS
Target: One friendly Unit
Effect: Target gains bonus equal to your Int mod to the next defense targeted against them, or your next turn, whichever comes first.

Above the Fray
"Removed from combat, you see the prime time to attack"
Encounter*Martial, The ability to be heard
Standard Action Range: 4 squares Blast 3
Target: Friendly Units in Blast
Effect: Targets gain +1d to their next attack, or your next turn.

Eye on the Prize
"Your infernal nagging has borne fruit, as your ally seizes the objective."
Daily*Martial, Yadda, yadda
Standard Action Range: 4 squares
Target Friendly Unit
Effect: Target gains another move action, to be used only for moving.

Mando Knight
2009-02-13, 11:29 AM
"Your infernal nagging has borne fruit, as your ally seizes the objective."

HEY!

...Listen!

HEY! Listen! You should be quiet and sneak here!

Shoot the open spot!
Shoot the tentacles to open the core!

Britter
2009-02-13, 12:20 PM
I am not a particularly great home-brwer, nor do I play one on T.V., so take anything I say with appropriate amounts of salt.

The primary reliable effects in 4e appear to be rituals and at-will powers. Would it be viable to homebrew at-will/encounter/daily versions of useful rituals? Since the primary limiting factor in the employment of rituals seems to be casting time and cost, converting some of the more useful ones and some of the ones that might actually be useful if they had less cost/casting time to standard action powers with no component cost would give you a greater variety of things to do. There might even be some battlefield shaping and such that could become part of your characters power-set if you went this route.

I have no clue how one would balance such things, as in what rituals should be converted to what sort of power. If you retain the skill check mechanic for your ritual, you would still have a chance of failure, which I know is not your cup-of-tea exactly, but it would still give you the ability to actively do things that did not involve targeting foes and doing damage.

Downsides that I can see are: 1) Figuring out what rituals should even be allowed to be converted to powers. Some would just be too useful if there was no casting time and component cost. Others will remain useless even without cost. This ultimately would come down to DM decision.

2) How would you round out the buffing/totem-pole side of your abilities? One possible way is to continue as you are and cherry-pick utility powers and non-targeted buffs from various class lists.

3)By giving your character easy, low casting time, low cost acsess to rituals, is the game balance going to be affected in a negative way? Since my idea feels, to me at least, like it skirts dangerously close to the 3.5 "magic as a easy and preferable solution to most problems" that 4e seems to want to shun, there might be ramifications that I can't see yet, being away from my books and, as mentioned, not the world's best home-brewer.

So, to recap, home-brew yourself a class that draws on existing utility powers and at-will/encounter/daily powers that provide a passive effect or buff, and work up at-will/encounter/daily versions of some rituals that are appropriate. These ritual powers would still require relevant skill rolls, but would have reduced or removed component cost. One of the class features should obviously be ritual caster, and perhaps a feat similar to the default wizard spellbook effect, allowing you to swap between two different daily powers after an extended rest. See if you can lobby for some of the wizard's cantrip powers as well, since they are flexible and not limited to attack rolls, though they are not particularly powerful.

Thats my two coppers, and those of you more familiar with the system and the ramifications of my suggestion can feel free to shoot it full of holes. :smallamused:

edit: pardon my spelling errors, I am suffering from a serious attack of can't-type-for-anything-itis.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-13, 06:29 PM
A living totem pole/reliable partner is perhaps the goal?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Well, I still think the Elven Bow Cleric can probably satisfy you without extensive homebrewing, but if you'd like to be a bit tankier, my Divine Commander Build (CHA Paladin, MC Warlord) works well too.

The Divine Commander has Divine Challenge (which requires no to-hit to work), and access to the superior Warlord Utilities and the Knight Commander Paragon Path. That means great aura powers (+2 to hit for all adjacent allies) and a variety of Effect Powers too.

Anyhow, let me know how the Elven Bow Cleric looks to you (when you get around to it) and whether you'd be interested in seeing the Divine Commander build too.

The main impediment to your desired character is the Encounter Power selection. Many Dailies have the Effect line to make up for potentially "wasting" a power with a miss; since Encounter powers recharge quickly, WotC didn't bother giving it to them.

The good news is you have Martial Powers. There's plenty of pure Codex Creep in there (that is, powers which violate the Core design philosophy) to better suit your build. Unfortunately, I don't have MP, so I can't design anything with it in mind - but I'm sure you can make the correct power swaps when necessary.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-14, 02:44 AM
Oh my, yes. They also had monks and druids who couldn't advance past a certain level unless they beat one of the N strongest members of their class.

Never has a Master of Flowers been so feared and respected :smallamused:

In other news: I'd be careful throwing around "everyone knows" unless you have back up. While in this case, it is clear that the original D&D Paladin was designed to be a LG "knight" with a code of conduct and so forth, WotC has just followed the path they set up in 3E with their Chaos Paladins and such.

IMHO, making a Paladin a "sacred warrior" and an exemplar of their deity's ideals is an acceptable alteration. It makes Paladins a more widely-used class, and allows a bit more breadth in character design. I mean, it worked for Rangers pretty well.

In case you didn't know, in 2E Rangers had to be a Good alignment - for some reason :smalltongue:
Bolded emphasis: It's called being rhetorical.

I just think the 4e paladin is presented with the idea of a Lawful Good Knight-Champion. Aside from the fluff, the 4d Paladin has very specific connotations that suggest the original TSR Paladin. But it's not like the idea of a "chaos knight" or a "tyrant knight" gets a whole lot of support mechanically.

An assassin, however, can be a champion for a specific kind. The kind that kills you for being an infidel or for besmirching the honor of your chosen patron, although the more commonly accepted version is a more mercenary sort of killer.

Besides, the idea of a knight dedicated soley to the idea of "chaos" strikes me as somewhat oxymoronic and out-of-context. Druids are champions of nature. Rangers might likewise be so. So-on and so forth. They all have very specific kinds of cultural roles. They could all very well be deemed "sacred warriors" of their respective causes.

Making a one-size-fits all Paladin is jarring in its straightforward logic of "they come in different flavors!" Well no, if they did, they'd be something other than a Paladin. But hell, let's give them Holy Knight themed powers anyway.

Aquillion
2009-02-14, 02:56 AM
Bolded emphasis: It's called being rhetorical.

I just think the 4e paladin is presented with the idea of a Lawful Good Knight-Champion. Aside from the fluff, the 4d Paladin has very specific connotations that suggest the original TSR Paladin. But it's not like the idea of a "chaos knight" or a "tyrant knight" gets a whole lot of support mechanically.I dunno. Good, certainly, but I don't see so much that reinforces "lawful". I think they may have been deliberately trying to get away from that restriction, actually -- they flat-out rolled 'chaotic good' and 'good' into one, and as the class most heavily linked to its alignment it's hard to avoid the thinking that the Paladin might have been part of the reason for that, since it'd be easier to associate it with a generic 'good' paladin if the law/chaos axis wasn't so distinct.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-14, 01:46 PM
So somebody explain to me why Sweet Rein doesn't want to be "reliable support" that just so happens to occassionally attack things? Why is occasionally missing and averaging out statistics over the long run such a bad thing again?

Yakk
2009-02-14, 03:25 PM
I don't see it much an issue. There are already utility powers that break a lot of these terms. Inspired Belligerence, from Martial Powers. A level 2 encounter that lets you give all your allies combat advantage over a single target. You don't need to hit this target or anything to do so, and can be up to 5 squares away.
Utility powers are supposed to be something that you do as an aside to your main action. And are, for the most part, less effective than your main action on a round.


And yes, there is a major part of the design philosophy I do object to:
if(hit('Stat vs Defense')){
x[W]+stat_damage + effect;
}
else return 0;

Rather, I would wish to see more of:
if(!restriction()){
effect;
}

For the most part, auto-effects are supposed to be weaker. Stronger effects are supposed to be tied to a chance to fail (at least partially) -- which, as a neat side effect, makes the effect scale against higher/lower level opponents in an automatic way.

A large chunk of the 'power curve' in 4e is from the expected +1/-1 modifier on d20 attack rolls per level (for PCs, half of it is explicit, the other half is from accumulated tricks and the like).

So yes, you are running into some fundamental design decisions in 4e.

This can be gotten around a bit by moving the 'chance to fail' to another character's roll (which, for example, the combat advantage against a target effect does).

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-14, 04:16 PM
So somebody explain to me why Sweet Rein doesn't want to be "reliable support" that just so happens to occassionally attack things? Why is occasionally missing and averaging out statistics over the long run such a bad thing again?

I'm going to say it's because that's how she likes to play.

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum - In matters of taste, there is no argument.

THAC0
2009-02-14, 07:15 PM
The Divine Commander has Divine Challenge (which requires no to-hit to work),

But does, just for clarification, require continuous threatening of the target.

So the options for the OP in maintaining it are:

1) stand next to the target, don't attack, but note that you will get attacked.
2) stand farther away, throw rocks at it to maintain the challenge (which does require attack rolls, yes), but if the target cannot reach you, they'll have to attack someone else at -2 and accept the Divine Challenge damage. Despite the fact that you have to make to-hits (which I know the OP doesn't like) really in this case the to-hits don't matter beyond maintaining the Challenge.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-14, 07:44 PM
But does, just for clarification, require continuous threatening of the target.

So the options for the OP in maintaining it are:

1) stand next to the target, don't attack, but note that you will get attacked.
2) stand farther away, throw rocks at it to maintain the challenge (which does require attack rolls, yes), but if the target cannot reach you, they'll have to attack someone else at -2 and accept the Divine Challenge damage. Despite the fact that you have to make to-hits (which I know the OP doesn't like) really in this case the to-hits don't matter beyond maintaining the Challenge.

Not exactly

On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.

You don't need to hit at all. Heck, you could make an Elven (or Halfling) Paladin that runs up within 5 to mark, and then runs away, firing arrows to maintain the Mark. If, for some reason, the OP were pathologically adverse to rolling d20s (which I'm certain is not the case), I'm sure the DM would be happy to allow her to auto-fail those attacks.

The Divine Commander is designed to be up close, and he does need to make attack rolls. But few of those attack rolls actually need to hit to cause some sort of effect; since it is likely impossible to make a character in 4E that never makes an attack roll, this seemed like a decent compromise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-14, 07:58 PM
You don't need to hit at all. Heck, you could make an Elven (or Halfling) Paladin that runs up within 5 to mark, and then runs away, firing arrows to maintain the Mark. If, for some reason, the OP were pathologically adverse to rolling d20s (which I'm certain is not the case), I'm sure the DM would be happy to allow her to auto-fail those attacks.It's not that she doesn't want to roll or doesn't want to hit, she just doesn't want to actually atack anything. She wants to stand in the back, buffing her party and altering the battlefield to help her party and hinder the opponents. She wants to take on the role of a 3.x Bard, chain-buffing Cleric, or Battlefield Control Wizard. Never hurting anything because "that's the beatstick's job" and it's beneath her, but causing victory in her own way.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-14, 08:10 PM
It's not that she doesn't want to roll or doesn't want to hit, she just doesn't want to actually atack anything. She wants to stand in the back, buffing her party and altering the battlefield to help her party and hinder the opponents. She wants to take on the role of a 3.x Bard, chain-buffing Cleric, or Battlefield Control Wizard. Never hurting anything because "that's the beatstick's job" and it's beneath her, but causing victory in her own way.

*shrug* I'll have to wait for the OP to respond on that, I suppose.

If what you say is true, then a standard Control Wizard would be ideal. Zone defenses and manipulations; MC Cleric or Paladin for some buff utilities and you're set. All that is needed is the acknowledgment that 4E attack rolls = 3E saving throws.

Reinboom
2009-02-15, 12:36 AM
Utility powers are supposed to be something that you do as an aside to your main action. And are, for the most part, less effective than your main action on a round.



For the most part, auto-effects are supposed to be weaker. Stronger effects are supposed to be tied to a chance to fail (at least partially) -- which, as a neat side effect, makes the effect scale against higher/lower level opponents in an automatic way.

A large chunk of the 'power curve' in 4e is from the expected +1/-1 modifier on d20 attack rolls per level (for PCs, half of it is explicit, the other half is from accumulated tricks and the like).

So yes, you are running into some fundamental design decisions in 4e.

This can be gotten around a bit by moving the 'chance to fail' to another character's roll (which, for example, the combat advantage against a target effect does).

Does buffing the party not do this? You give them bonuses, they retain their chance to miss. :smallconfused:


It's not that she doesn't want to roll or doesn't want to hit, she just doesn't want to actually atack anything. She wants to stand in the back, buffing her party and altering the battlefield to help her party and hinder the opponents. She wants to take on the role of a 3.x Bard, chain-buffing Cleric, or Battlefield Control Wizard. Never hurting anything because "that's the beatstick's job" and it's beneath her, but causing victory in her own way.

Basically.

Though, as I said, I don't need to stand back very far, 5 spaces is fine. Just not be next to the enemy.


-edit-
I need to read the wizard more. Will get back on that.
-edit-
Though, to note again, I care less for aggressive battlefield control and more buffing. As a 3.5 wizard I would cast Haste before Slow.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-15, 12:57 AM
Does buffing the party not do this? You give them bonuses, they retain their chance to miss. :smallconfused:

Right, that's the fix Yakk pointed out.

4E made the decision that people generally enjoy doing things (i.e. rolling dice) to not doing things (i.e. watching other people roll dice). To this end, pretty much every buff also includes an attack portion in it. For some weak buffs (Divine Glow, for example) the effect is decoupled from your chance to hit; for stronger buffs, you must also hit to provide the buff.

If you would be happy with a class that provided only weak buffs to your allies, it could probably be built. Otherwise, you would create a class which vastly overshadows all other buffing classes in 4E.

Re: Offensive v. Defensive
As a rule, Wizards provide offensive battlefield control; Clerics and Paladins offer defensive control.

A Wizard can drop zones and mass de-buffs all over the place; build walls and move enemies around all willy-nilly.

Clerics (and to a lesser extent, Paladins) create temporary buffs to their allies, or make zones which buff their allies and may hinder their opponents. It is perfectly possible to make a Stonewall Cleric, if this type of play style appeals to you - it will probably be a bit weaker than a standard cleric, but it will certainly still be playable.

Wizards basically make themselves. Pick the Orb Specialization (or Staff, if you're worried about being hit) and choose anything that has a Save End or creates a Zone. Bam.

THAC0
2009-02-15, 06:46 PM
Not exactly


You don't need to hit at all. Heck, you could make an Elven (or Halfling) Paladin that runs up within 5 to mark, and then runs away, firing arrows to maintain the Mark. If, for some reason, the OP were pathologically adverse to rolling d20s (which I'm certain is not the case), I'm sure the DM would be happy to allow her to auto-fail those attacks.

The Divine Commander is designed to be up close, and he does need to make attack rolls. But few of those attack rolls actually need to hit to cause some sort of effect; since it is likely impossible to make a character in 4E that never makes an attack roll, this seemed like a decent compromise.

Yes, that's exactly what I said...

Reinboom
2009-02-28, 01:38 PM
I would like to update on this.
I'm currently, slowly, homebrewing a class to my liking, viewing other classes (mostly leaders) and expansions whotsee has released to get a basis for the powers.

In this viewing, I've noticed that even whotsee has broken (and breaking, the further away from the first players handbook I read) the 'need to attack' rule for many powers.

For example, the Artificer has a 1st level daily power that creates a wall zone of acid. The wall does automatic damage to anything in or adjacent to the wall (1d6+ int mod).

Though, this is reflective of higher level Wizard Utility spells, I would like to make this as an example of "Why the attack isn't necessary for attack powers".

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-01, 05:01 AM
For example, the Artificer has a 1st level daily power that creates a wall zone of acid. The wall does automatic damage to anything in or adjacent to the wall (1d6+ int mod).

Though, this is reflective of higher level Wizard Utility spells, I would like to make this as an example of "Why the attack isn't necessary for attack powers".

If you'd like to make a class that is all Zone effects, I suppose that's OK, though you should note that mostly Walls are auto-damage; larger zones usually require some manner of attack roll. Also, Zones are short lived (if Encounter) or usually require Sustaining (if Daily). Additionally, these auto-effects still follow the "low effect for high rate of success" rule, by and large; they still adhere to 4E design philosophies.